Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 377–379 | Cite as

Fungi associated with the southern pine beetle: avoidance of induced defense response in loblolly pine

  • T. D. Paine
  • F. M. Stephen
Original Papers

Summary

Loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) are rapidly killed by colonizing southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). The female beetles carry two species of fungi (Ceratocystis minor var. barrasii and an unnamed basidiomycete) within a mycangium. The insects are also frequently associated with a blue-staining form of C. minor. These fungi are inoculated into the tree during colonization. The tree has an induced defensive response that involves resin soaking and necrosis of affected tissue isolating the invading organlsms. The blue-staining fungus stimulates formation of this response in the tree, but the two mycangial fungi do not. These results suggest that the beetles are closely associated with two highly pathogenic fungi that do not stimulate one of the critical components of tree defense.

Key words

Dendroctonus frontalis Ceratocystis minor Pinus taeda Induced defenses Hypersensitive response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barras SJ (1973) Reduction of progeny and development in the southern pine beetle following removal of symbiotic fungi. Can Entomol 105: 1295–1299Google Scholar
  2. Barras SJ, Hodges JD (1969) Carbohydrates of the inner bark of Pinus taeda as affected by Dendroctonus frontalis and associated microorganisms. Can Entomol 101: 489–493Google Scholar
  3. Barras SJ, Perry T (1972) Fungal symbionts in the prothoracic mycangium of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Z Ang Entomol 71: 95–104Google Scholar
  4. Barras SJ, Taylor JJ (1973) Varietal Ceratocystis minor identified from the mycangium of Dendroctonus frontalis. Mycopath et Mycol Appl 50: 293–305Google Scholar
  5. Bridges JR, Nettleton WA, Connor MD (1985) Southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations without the blue-stain fungus, Ceratocystis minor. J Econ Entomol 78: 325–327Google Scholar
  6. Caird RW (1935) Physiology of pines infested with bark beetles. Bot Gazette 96: 709–733Google Scholar
  7. Craighead RC (1928) Interrelation of tree-killing bark beetles (Dendroctonus) and blue-stains. J For 216: 886–887Google Scholar
  8. Doke N, Tomiyama K (1980) Suppression of the hypersensitive response of potato tuber protoplasts to hyphal wall components by water soluble glucans isolated from Phytophthora infestans. Physol Plant Pathol 16: 177–186Google Scholar
  9. Francke-Grosmann H (1965) Ein Symbioseorgan bei dem Borkenkäfer Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm. Naturwissenschaften 52: 143Google Scholar
  10. Garas NA, Doke N, Kuc J (1979) Suppression of the hypersensitive reaction in potato tubers by mycelial components from Phytophthora infestans. Physiol Plant Pathol 15: 117–126Google Scholar
  11. Graham K (1967) Fungal-insect mutualism in trees and timber. Ann Rev Entomol 12: 105–126Google Scholar
  12. Hemingway RW, McGraw GW, Barras SJ (1977) Polyphenols in Ceratocystis minor-infected Pinus taeda: Fungal metabolites, phloem and xylem phenols. J Agric Food Chem 25: 717–720Google Scholar
  13. Hetrick LA (1949) Some overlooked relationships of the southern pine beetle. J Econ Entomol 42: 466–469Google Scholar
  14. Maclean DJ, Sargent JA, Tommerup IC, Ingram DS (1974) Hypersensitivity as the primary event in resistance to fungal parasites. Nature (London) 249: 186–187Google Scholar
  15. Muller KO (1959) Hypersensitivity. In: Horsefall JG, Dimond AE (eds) Plant Pathology, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 469–519Google Scholar
  16. Nelson RM (1934) Effect of blue-stain fungi on southern pines attacked by bark beetles. Phytopathol Z 7: 325–352Google Scholar
  17. Nelson RM, Beal JA (1929) Experiments with blue-stain fungi in southern pines. Phytopathology 19: 1101–1106Google Scholar
  18. Paine TD (1984a) Influence of the mycangial fungi of the western pine beetle on water conduction through ponderosa pine seedlings. Can J Bot 62: 556–558Google Scholar
  19. Paine TD (1984b) Seasonal response of ponderosa pine to inoculation of the mycangial fungi from the western pine beetle. Can J Bot 62: 551–555Google Scholar
  20. Reid RW, Whitney HS, Watson JA (1967) Reactions of lodge-pole pine to attack by Dendroctonus ponderosa Hopkins and bluestain fungi. Can J Bot 45: 1115–1126Google Scholar
  21. Shrimpton DM (1978) Resistance of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle infestation. In: Berryman AA, Amman GD, Stark RW, Kibbee DL (eds) Theory and Practice of Mountain Pine Beetle Management in Lodgepole Pine Forests. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID, pp 64–76Google Scholar
  22. Stephen FM, Paine TD (1985) Seasonal patterns of host tree resistance to fungal associates of the southern pine beetle. Z Ang Entomol 99: 113–122Google Scholar
  23. Wong BL, Berryman AA (1977) Host resistance to the fir engraver beetle. 3. Lesion development and containment of infection by resistant Abies grandis inoculated with Trichosporium symbioticum. Can J Bot 55: 2358–2365Google Scholar
  24. Wright E (1933) A cork borer method for inoculating trees. Phytopathology 23: 487–488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. D. Paine
    • 1
  • F. M. Stephen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations